I'm not a fan of Corbyn or the Labour Party really, but at least someone is putting forward a manifesto that says things aren't right and something needs to change. The city I live in is a hell-hole full of drunks, addicts and beggars. I haven't ever seen anything from a Conservative government that even acknowledges that, let alone says they're going to sort it. I personally think they're quite happy with it, because they'll never come here.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Europe IV: The Final Hour
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
While the SNP will push towards a referendum, it would be madness for them to have one too soon, assuming they want to win.
Brexit isn't an issue for them, strictly speaking, because if Scotland becomes independent, it would leave the EU and have to apply to join. That means it doesn't really matter whether they become independent before or after; either way, they leave the EU and need to rejoin.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Asura View PostBrexit isn't an issue for them, strictly speaking, because if Scotland becomes independent, it would leave the EU and have to apply to join. That means it doesn't really matter whether they become independent before or after; either way, they leave the EU and need to rejoin.
Comment
-
That's the thing, as bad as Westminster rule no doubt now looks a cancelled Brexit could swing the independence vote massively as the SNP would basically be running a referendum on the platform of telling voters they should vote in favour of re-enabling it on a much worse scale for Scotland and their remain happy audience will likely be so weary of the issue that they could risk losing that vote on a larger basis than last time which would be devastating to the SNP given they already got a clout by voters in 2017 for nudging that way too quick. Otherwise, if we leave I could easily imagine Independence sides winning as there's little left to lose. If Labour/SNP get in then a second independence ref seems better done with time taken to prepare.
Comment
-
Originally posted by QualityChimp View PostRees-Mogg says it was "common sense" for people in Grenfell to have ignored the advice of the fire teams to stay in the building (who were unaware of the lack of proper fireproof cladding) and should have just left.
I know this because I genuinely don't believe those people did anything wrong. So there's no chance I would ever say that.
Rees-Mogg is only capable of saying that because, deep down, he thinks those people were in some way responsible for the disaster that befell them - and by "those people" he means those who died, and the class of people involved in any way with the construction & maintenance of the tower, who probably learned architecture at a school which was <shudder> FREE.
Comment
-
It is mad how blatant everything has become. I mean, let's not kid ourselves - there was always horrible insidious things in politics (both events and people) - but they are just so open about it now and know there are no repercussions. A party could rebrand as The Pure Evil Party on a platform of 'we want to kill you all' and right now they'd be invited onto panels, would have their quotes about Corbyn on the front pages and would have a bunch of people saying, well at least they say what we're all thinking.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Asura View PostRees-Mogg is only capable of saying that because, deep down, he thinks those people were in some way responsible for the disaster that befell them - and by "those people" he means those who died, and the class of people involved in any way with the construction & maintenance of the tower, who probably learned architecture at a school which was <shudder> FREE.
Comment
-
One of the most rotten things about the political system in this country is that people are conditioned to not take politicians very seriously if they come across as impossibly posh and old-fashioned. Any comments they make just get written off as comedy gaffes and more-or-less forgotten in a few days. He means well really, he's just a blustering Bertie Wooster type who doesn't understand the modern world. It's bollocks - they know exactly what they're doing.
I've heard the interview and while some people feel in context it makes more sense as to why he said it, I feel it actually highlighted an even nastier subtext. To me, it comes across as that he thinks nothing of the deaths of these people other than it being an inconvenience for his party. Rather than stop to consider that that his party could have enacted legislation to prevent this kind of disaster, he actively hates these people for having the sheer nerve to make his lot look bad by "choosing" to burn to death.
Imagine what kind of evil little **** you'd have to be to not only think like that, but also clearly feel strongly enough about it that you can't even bite your tongue in an interview.
It's alright though, all he has to do is mention "nanny" in a week or so and it'll all go back to normal. People will go back to thinking of him as a silly and harmless "colourful character", free to do all the horrible crap he wants.
Comment
-
16% of the public support a target of the UK reaching Zero Carbon Emissions by 2050
56% of the public support a target of the UK reaching Zero Carbon Emissions by 2030 however
They should make it 2024, then they'd have 80%+ public support and said party would see a huge boost. We're going to miss the 2030 target so might as well go all in on the pledged date. Serious progress won't be made until proper, practical and tangible plans are made instead of clearly empty promises for short term publicity.
Comment
Comment